Pages

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mad Rant: A British Senate?

As you have probably heard, “Call Me Dave” Cameron, the so-called conservative Prime Minister of the U.K. (surely at the behest of Deputy Fuhrer Nick Cleggy) have announced their intention to effectively demolish the House of Lords and put a British Senate in place of it. I am sure that while Great Britain is drowning in a sea of foreigners, crippled by unemployment, choked with regulations and bureaucracy and deeper in debt than Greece that the vast majority of British people are in the streets demanding that something be done about the House of Lords! They are not, of course, because what has lately been called the House of Lords was already as near to being totally useless as any government body could be. The House of Commons is where the action is and the House of Lords is largely ignored. It’s rather like a really large political discussion group for former politicians. The British people, I am sure, have other priorities. But not the Deputy Fuhrer and his Liberal Democrats. They are on a mission to seek out and destroy anything remotely “British” in Great Britain and grind it beneath their egalitarian, socialistic, EU-loving boot heel.

This, honestly, does not upset quite as much as some might suppose. Rest assured this is only because of the simple fact that, at the very least since the Blair government, I don’t care what they call that gutted, toothless, glorified talking shop but it is most certainly NOT the House of Peers. The traditional upper house of the British Parliament has been so mutilated, so perverted and so twisted into the current monstrosity that putting it down seems almost an act of mercy. Almost. I say that only because once something is totally and officially removed it is historically all but impossible to ever get it back and so long as there was still something called a House of Lords that carried on, at least in name, the tradition, there remained something to work with to restore it to the proper function it once had. What is going on now is clearly disastrous and to be opposed absolutely, however, it is only the culmination of an act of destruction that began a long time ago when the House of Lords was first subject to manipulation in order to accommodate the House of Commons and when the House of Lords lost the ability to actually stop any legislation and when that ridiculous farce of a “life peer” first entered the British lexicon.

I could do my best to stomach all the previous wounding of the upper house but the introduction of “life peers” as the expulsion of the hereditary peers was, to me, effectively the end of the House of Lords anyway. What is being proposed now is simply the final nail in the coffin but that is one nail that is still worth opposing. Compounded stupidity is still stupidity after all. As the British parliamentary system was originally established, the House of Peers served an important and practical function. It consisted of men who had a vested interest in the long-term success of Great Britain, men who had a stake in the country and who had a lifetime of diverse, “real world” experience from which to draw on in their deliberations on the bills passed by the Commons. They were non-political and beyond the influence of the passing trends of popular opinion. They were also guardians of the most time-honored traditions of England and later the United Kingdom. Their ancestry and the hereditary nature of the house meant that they could take a broad view, unconcerned with elections and political pandering, to do what was in the best interests of the country as a whole and the British legacy. What shall replace it?

A British Senate if the current government has its way. They will be elected which means they will be representative, in theory at least, of their constituents. Granted, this may seem to make more sense than the current, ridiculous set up of government-appointed “life peers” (I mean, really, was there ever a more absurd notion?) but it is certainly no improvement. What is the point of an elected senate? In the United States, before that vile visionary Woodrow Wilson screwed things up, the Senate represented the states of the Union. The House of Representatives represented the interests of the people who elected them but the Senate (often appointed by Governors or state legislatures) was to represent the interests of the states. Who or what are British senators supposed to represent? There are no states in the U.K. and regions such as Wales, Scotland and even Northern Ireland already have their own local assemblies. They would, we assume, represent the people who vote them into office. Yet, Britain already has such a body, and has had for really quite some time, called the House of Commons. In a way, this is not any sort of reform at all but rather is the destruction of the ancient bicameral legislature of the United Kingdom by abolishing the House of Lords and simply vastly expanding the House of Commons.

This will do Great Britain no good whatsoever. All this will do is add another layer of the same sort of confused, incompetent leadership that has made the House of Commons the center of so much derision. Which is not to say that the House of Lords was not in need of some authentic reform. It was too loosely organized, too large and made the British Parliament rather top-heavy, though -I hasten to add- this was mostly a result of the way the House of Peers was tweaked and tortured into assuring the outcome desired by the Commons. If I had my way the House would have been reformed by restoring the hereditary peers, restoring the powers of the House but cutting down on the number of those given seats which could be done by granting seats to those peers who hold the senior most title in their general area. Just an idea. Instead, since the Blair government has thrown out the baby, the Cameron government is adding more bathwater. Again, it is possible to overstate the calamity of this because so much of the damage had already been done. Many factors have certainly been at play over the years but, I cannot help but note, that when the House of Peers operated in the traditional fashion the United Kingdom was one of the most successful and dynamic countries in the world and the center of the largest maritime empire in history. Since the U.K. started down the road of a unicameral legislature, just how has Great Britain fared? Is Britain greater or poorer now and what does the answer to that say about the direction the country is going in? A simple question, posed by the simple, and damaged, mind of … The Mad Monarchist.

Leave it to anti-monarchial interests and pro-democracy factions to, in a time of trouble, do exactly the opposite of what is needed. What I would do, is abolish the office of Prime Minister, make the House of Lords made up ONLY of lords and ladies, Sell the house on Downing, and place the Queen directly in control of both houses, doing the Prime Minister's job, but as Queen, residing over her nation, as a Monarch is supposed to be. I would also favor Britain pulling out of the EU.

The queen, or any sovereign authority for that matter, has power to thwart or to prohibit such measure. I do not understand why monarchs today do not have a backbone. The queen is a "ceremonial figure;" no, the queen is the sovereign authority and she has every sovereign right to abolish or to prevent whatever to preserve and to maintain the dignity and the legacy of her kingdom, as a wise monarch ought to do. Monarchs are giving in to democrats and republicans and this infuriates me to no end. Why is the queen tolerating this nonsense?

Regrettably, the last two monarchs of my former kingdom, i.e., Victor Emmanuel III and Umberto II, caved in to the democrats and republicans. I wish they had a true backbone to keep the glorious Kingdom of Italy and House of Savoy alive. Threat of or actual civil war ought not to matter. The main priority of a monarch is to preserve and to protect his kingdom and his subjects at all costs. If the monarch loses in the end, then at least he put up a fight, which is honorable in my eye.

What occurred in my homeland, in Russia, and other former monarchies, I see occurring in Great Britain and other remaining monarchies. The monarch stands idly and watches his kingdom wither ever so gradually. When will the remaining monarchs step in to stop the democrat and republican influence? Will they wait until the last minute? By then it will be too late to do anything. Regardless of the type of monarchy (i.e. absolute or constitutional; hereditary or elective), the monarch possesses all powers of sovereignty. The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the monarch makes law. To presume that a monarch forever waives the right to exercise one of his sovereign powers turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.

A message to the remaining monarchs today, USE YOUR SOVEREIGN POWERS before it is too late. In addition, have a backbone or you will become like the other deceased kingdoms.

It will do them no good.When King Baudouin said no to the abortion bill, they replaced him with a council of minister for a day. When Grand Duke Henri said no the euthanasia bill, they removes his right to sanction laws. When King Gyanendra dissolved the parliament because of their incompetence, they removed him and dynasty to the gutter and declared a republic.Ironic is it, how these so called liberals are forcing their belief so tyrannically.

I say this. Remove all life peers ( life peers! The idea was designed as an honourary designation by Louis XIV not as a political group). Return all hereditary peers to the house of lords. As one guy said, abolish the prime minister. Let the lords and commons sit as one body precided over by the queen. Give the queen absolute executive and judicial authority. Give the queen to right to propose legislation for parliaments approval- and the parliament the right to propose legislation for her approval (or rejection).

And that's when the U.S. Senate works at all. The current lot hasn't passed a budget in THREE YEARS -even from their own party. But just think Britons, with a Senate of your own, maybe, just maybe, you too can pay millions for a "bridge to nowhere".

And I say this...there is no King but Jesus! (A battle cry heard at Lexington & Concord). From a Patriot in the Mohawk Valley, former colony of New-York. Nevertheless, love this site! :) Kings, Queens, or Presidents...we all watch as a strong middle class disappears.

Jesus would say otherwise. He accepted the rule of King Herod and Emperor Tiberius. The Good Book contains many (many) admonishments to be loyal to the king as well as to God but as many times as I've read it, I've yet to find any endorsement of majority rule or admonishments to obey presidents.

And a good Patriot should remember that these United States would not exist without the support of His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France and Navarre, so while Americans can be republicans, even the most ardent Patriots should not be prejudiced about monarchies beyond American shores.

Not only is Britain going down the disastrous and laughable route of replacing the Lords with a senate, they seem to be using the worst possible foreign model to import. As you mentioned, instituting direct election of Senators in the U.S. was one of the biggest constitutional mistakes this country ever had. It removed representation for the states and really pushed the concept of state sovereignty further into the rubbish heap. The U.S. Senate became, essentially, nothing more than a smaller and more prestigious version of the House of Representatives, rather than a totally distinct body with a distinct function and purpose.

Yet, that is the model the British are using. If they *must* have a Senate, they should at least look for the least worst version of such a thing. Given the structure of the UK, Canada would be a more appropriate model - Senators appointed by the Queen (on the PM's "recommendation") for life terms or until mandatory retirement age, representing the country at-large rather than any specific districts.

Restoring the House of Lords to its rightful and historical state would, of course, be the best possible reform to make, but an American-style Senate would be the absolute worst. A Canadian-style Senate would be at least somewhere in between.

It really speaks to British politicians' incomprehensible fascination and with, and intentional dependence on, the United States and the EU rather than on their more logical and appropriate overseas partners within the Commonwealth.